Student wins freedom of speech case - is awarded $1 - Polidicks

[url]http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130722/13112723888/students-free-speech-victory-is-victory-everyone-even-if-you-disagree-with-his-speech.shtml[/url] [quote=TechDirt]As strong proponents of free speech, we've made the point in the past that protecting the freedom of speech is going to necessitate protecting it for the kind of speech you wouldn't typically like to exist. Put another way, it's quite easy to be in favor of free speech when you aren't the one offended. It takes much more mental courage to stick up for the protected speech of a Nazi, a bigot, a sexist, or an idiot.[/quote]

Just because you have the right to freedom of speech doesn't entitle you to say what you want without consequences.

[QUOTE=bisousbisous;41581780]Just because you have the right to freedom of speech doesn't entitle you to say what you want without consequences.[/QUOTE] That is the exact and literal definition of "freedom of speech." You can't rightly tell somebody they have freedom of speech, and then punish them for using it.

[QUOTE=bisousbisous;41581780]Just because you have the right to freedom of speech doesn't entitle you to say what you want without consequences.[/QUOTE] okay except those consequences can't come from a public servant

Just because you have the right to freedom of speech doesn't mean you're not a total tool.

[QUOTE=bisousbisous;41581780]Just because you have the right to freedom of speech doesn't entitle you to say what you want without consequences.[/QUOTE] And being booted from class shouldn't be one of the consequences. The point of freedom of speech is to protect the minority opinion from the wrath of the majority. If a kid in 1955 was saying he accepted gays for his lack of religion, and was booted from class, then the lot of you would be up in arms.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;41581805]That is the exact and literal definition of "freedom of speech." You can't rightly tell somebody they have freedom of speech, and then punish them for using it.[/QUOTE] the beautiful thing about free speech is that you can still be punished for the intent in your words. Really, as a whole it's meant to give press and citizens the freedom to speak up about politics without fear of being stopped for not saying favorable things. reading the article, this is kind of a red flag- [quote]It began, as you'd never expect, in a Michigan classroom, with a child wearing confederate flag belt. When the teacher, Johnson McDowell asked her to remove the belt, Glowacki pointed out that the teachers were all wearing purple for "Anti-Bullying Day."[/quote] Standing up to argue and essentially turn it to "I dislike gays because religion" is way different than just saying you don't accept others' lifestyles, which is perfectly sound to not expect trouble for by itself. Obviously we don't know what tone it was really presented it in, how heated the argument got or whether he was being more of a toolbag about it and being disruptive in class, but I'd expect a good number of my old teachers to have found it reasonable cause to send someone to the principal for misbehavior or indirectly threatening other students. also what the hell is up with the source? The writer is a 'tech consultant' on techdirt but most of his posts are political opinion pieces that amount to "the government is out to get you"

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;41581805]That is the exact and literal definition of "freedom of speech." You can't rightly tell somebody they have freedom of speech, and then punish them for using it.[/QUOTE] I think of it as 'rights and responsibilities' - you have a right to freedom of speech, and you should show appreciation for it by not using it to stamp on the rights of others, which is a responsibility.

[QUOTE=leontodd;41581896]Just because you have the right to freedom of speech doesn't mean you're not a total tool.[/QUOTE] My dad once made a racist remark at the dinner table to which my grandma made one of my all time favorite quotes, "Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but shut the hell up".

[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;41582161]I think of it as 'rights and responsibilities' - you have a right to freedom of speech, and you should show appreciation for it by not using it to stamp on the rights of others, which is a responsibility.[/QUOTE] You have the right to free speech and the responsibility to bear the consequences.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;41581805]That is the exact and literal definition of "freedom of speech." You can't rightly tell somebody they have freedom of speech, and then punish them for using it.[/QUOTE] What about hate speech?

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;41582371]What about hate speech?[/QUOTE] There is no good definition on "hate speech". Whatever is the exception to freedom of speech, is the established religion.

[QUOTE=JainBug;41582401]There is no good definition on "hate speech".[/QUOTE] There are pretty good definitions on hate speech. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech[/url]

just because unrestricted freedom of speech is a thing doesn't mean it should continue being a thing

[QUOTE=Eltro102;41582708]just because unrestricted freedom of speech is a thing doesn't mean it should continue being a thing[/QUOTE] any attempt to put an asterisk on it to say "but don't be a dickbag" will just make all the dickbags get up at arms about their freedoms being taken away. On the plus side, they'd have to basically admit that they just want to be a bag of dicks

The concept of freedom of speech is good and all but not fit for every society.

[QUOTE=Eltro102;41582708]just because unrestricted freedom of speech is a thing doesn't mean it should continue being a thing[/QUOTE] What good could possibly come of limiting someones range of expression. Just because the masses disagree with what you say shouldn't be grounds for punishment. [QUOTE=MrJazzy;41582769]The concept of freedom of speech is good and all but not fit for every society.[/QUOTE] So now we discriminate which elements are allowed to speak their mind?

[QUOTE=snapshot32;41582781]What good could possibly come of limiting someones range of expression. Just because the masses disagree with what you say shouldn't be grounds for punishment.[/QUOTE] Freedom of Speech isn't perfect, it does harm in ways. [quote]So now we discriminate which elements are allowed to speak their mind?[/quote] I'm not saying that we should give up freedom of speech completely cause we're not that ahead in time yet - but if you think freedom of speech should include bigotry, racism, sexism and such then you're living in a twisted past.

[QUOTE=Eltro102;41582708]just because unrestricted freedom of speech is a thing doesn't mean it should continue being a thing[/QUOTE] "Free speech" is pretty heavily restricted (see hate speech), it's just that in this particular case, the court ruled in favor of it.

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;41582820]Freedom of Speech isn't perfect, it does harm in ways.[/QUOTE] How exactly can vocal expression cause damage?

[QUOTE=snapshot32;41582781] So now we discriminate which elements are allowed to speak their mind?[/QUOTE] yes

[QUOTE=Eltro102;41582856]yes[/QUOTE] Essentially you would want a world where there is an opportunity for oppression just because you would deem them unqualified for mental expression.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;41582840]How exactly can vocal expression cause damage?[/QUOTE] Example: Racist group uses hate speech to recruit, said group goes out at night beating black people for being black. There's how vocal expression can harm.

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;41582820]Freedom of Speech isn't perfect, it does harm in ways. I'm not saying that we should give up freedom of speech completely cause we're not that ahead in time yet - but if you think freedom of speech should include bigotry, racism, sexism and such then you're living in a twisted past.[/QUOTE] It can cause harm, but the oppression caused by not having free speech is far far worse.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;41582889]Essentially you would want a world where there is an opportunity for oppression just because you disagree with their words.[/QUOTE] It's not because we disagree with their words, it's because their words do harm. Saying "So you oppress a minority because you disagree with them" is so inaccurate and vague. [editline]25th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;41582896]It can cause harm, but the oppression caused by not having free speech is far far worse.[/QUOTE] Absolutely, which is why the only time I would give up freedom of speech totally would be in a perfect society - what I'm saying is that freedom of speech isn't [I]perfect[/I], it doesn't [I]only[/I] do good, the world is not black and white. But I say that our society is getting closer to that perfect society, and so should we adapt by sacrificing a bit of the old unecessary.

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;41582891]Example: Racist group uses hate speech to recruit, said group goes out at night beating black people for being black. There's how vocal expression can harm.[/QUOTE] Let me make this clear. There is a difference between expressing your mind and actually being physically aggressive. Don't get me wrong if you threaten someones life directly you should be punished, but expressing distaste and using hateful words shouldn't be grounds for conviction.

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;41582906] Absolutely, which is why the only time I would give up freedom of speech totally would be in a perfect society - what I'm saying is that freedom of speech isn't [I]perfect[/I], it doesn't [I]only[/I] do good, the world is not black and white. Yet as I say that our society is getting closer to that perfect society, and so should we adapt.[/QUOTE] The problem with not allowing free speech is that you can start going down a slippery slope on what you can and cannot say. Sure stopping people from making racist remarks might be nice, but if merely being offensive is a crime then a massive long list of other things can also start becoming crimes. It's better to just tolerate stupid opinions than trying to suppress them. As far as I know inciting violence is not covered by most free speech laws as far as I know so thats not much of an issue.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;41582927]Let me make this clear. There is a difference between expressing your mind and actually being physically aggressive. Don't get me wrong if you threaten someones life directly you should be punished, but expressing distaste and using hateful words shouldn't be grounds for conviction.[/QUOTE] That's not at all what I'm talking about. Let me make it a bit more clear. Racist group A does not go out publicly and does not use hate speech to gather recruits. Racist group A does not gather as many recruits. Therefor group A doesn't do as much harm because it is smaller. Racist group B goes out publicly and uses hate speech to gather recruits. Racist group B gets more people than group A. Therefor group B is bigger and does more harm when the group acts. Did that make it clear? [editline]25th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=carcarcargo;41582951]The problem with not allowing free speech is that you can start going down a slippery slope on what you can and cannot say. Sure stopping people from making racist remarks might be nice, but if merely being offensive is a crime then a massive long list of other things can also start becoming crimes. It's better to just tolerate stupid opinions than trying to suppress them. As far as I know inciting violence is not covered by most free speech laws as far as I know so thats not much of an issue.[/QUOTE] Being offensive is not illegal and shouldn't be, not in our society, it's only hate speech which is in form of public statements.

[QUOTE=MrJazzy;41582976]That's not at all what I'm talking about. Let me make it a bit more clear. Racist group A does not go out publicly and does not use hate speech to gather recruits. Racist group A does not gather as many recruits. Therefor group A doesn't do as much harm because it is smaller. Racist group B goes out publicly and uses hate speech to gather recruits. Racist group B gets more people than group A. Therefor group B is bigger and does more harm when the group acts. Did that make it clear?[/QUOTE] What I meant was, unless someone directly instigates a physical confrontation (by this I mean someone says 'Hey lets beat up that black guy'), they cannot be held in contempt of their thoughts. We all think fucked up shit from time to time and those few who lack the control or forethought to their words shouldn't be punished for being stupid. Unless they become physical with their expression.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;41583037]What I meant was, unless someone directly instigates a physical confrontation (by this I mean someone says 'Hey lets beat up that black guy'), they cannot be held in contempt of their thoughts. We all think fucked up shit from time to time and those few who lack the control or forethought to their words shouldn't be punished for being stupid. Unless they become physical with their expression.[/QUOTE] Nobody wants to start arresting people for what they think, but for discriminating without proper basis. What's so wrong about restricting free speech to not include hate speech? It's already being done in pretty much most of the world, and it's working fine. [editline]25th July 2013[/editline] Bigotry, sexism and such is not only harmful because it encourages physical abuse. Employers chose not to hire people because of their faith, skin colour, life-style, sexuality and sex to give an other example.